- (1.) THE petition has been preferred as against the order dated 9.08.2011 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal) in Original Application No.164/2010.
(2.) BY way of filing the original application, the petitioner claimed seniority over the respondent no. 4 on the ground that he was confirmed earlier to respondent no. 4 and he should have been shown senior in the succeeding seniority list ranging from 1995-2009. The claim of the petitioner was refuted in the reply to Original Application wherein it was submitted that the petitioner's confirmation was made earlier because of wrong counting of working days of the applicant which was discovered subsequently. Thereafter in the subsequent seniority lists issued in the year 1995, 2000, 2003 and 2006, the petitioner was shown junior to the respondent no. 4. Against the seniority list Annexure R/5 issued in the year 2006, the petitioner preferred representation which was rejected vide Annexure R/6 which was not challenged by the petitioner. In the year 2009, one more seniority list was issued showing the peitioner as junior to the private respondent which was challenged by him before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the material on record dismissed the O.A. Learned counsel Mr. Khandelwal, appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed earlier than the respondent no. 4 and, therefore, the petitioner was senior to the respondent no. 4. Thus, the Tribunal has erred in rejecting the application . We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. It has come on record that a mistake was committed by the respondent in calculation of working days of the applicant at the time of initial appointment. Though the petitioner denied that by mistake 853 working days were added but no specific objection or evidence contrary to that was submitted by the petitioner. Even the petitioner did not challenge the seniority list issued in the year 1995(Anx. A/2) and also in the seniority list issued in the year 2000 (Annx. R/3) wherein he was shown junior to the respondent no.4. The Tribunal after considering the material on record has found that the contentions raised by the petitioner has no merit and even going by computation of the period, the date of confirmation and on the basis of the date of appointment no one claim benefit for the bonafide mistake committed earlier. The Tribunal has also found that what had earlier remained unchallenged and settled for all these years must remain so. Under these circumstances, we do not find any error in the order passed by the Tribunal and the writ application deserves to be dismissed. Consequently, the writ application being bereft of merit is dismissed. No order as to costs. ;